Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
US Criticised for 'soft stance' on Kenya's Human Rights Abuses
Share:
by Rhonda J Mangus | March 2, 2009 at 09:14 am
341 views | 32 Recommendations | 15 comments
Videos
KNCHR Reveal How Police Killed 500 Suspects Of The Mungiki Sect_
sourced by Rhonda J Mangus
Recently, the United States Department of State criticized human rights abuses in China. The 'soft stance' of the Clinton-led State Department related to human rights abuses in Kenya appears somewhat different.
The US report released on Wednesday contrasts sharply with the stinging criticisms presented by a United Nations special investigator on the same day.
Unlike UN’s Philip Alston findings of widespread and systematic killings by Kenyan police, the US review makes note of charges by human rights groups but offers only mild comments of its own.
The State Department does not criticise any Kenyan officials by name, nor does it call for specific actions on the part of the government.
Prof Alston accused security forces of torturing and killing hundreds of civilians in Mount Elgon district, but the State Department says only: “The ongoing conflict in Mount Elgon resulted in human rights abuses. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, there were frequent instances in which the security forces, particularly the police, acted independently.”
The US human rights report on Kenya also makes no explicit condemnations in regard to the alleged killing of over 500 suspected members of Mungiki.
Prof Alston, by contrast, said that police death squads operated in Nairobi and Central Province with a mandate from their superiors to “exterminate” Mungiki.
Concerning the furore over delays in addressing the post-election violence, the State Department observes: “Progress on reform was slow and efforts to address the economic and social aftermath of the violence were incomplete.”
The generally gentle US assessment of conditions in Kenya drew a strong rebuke from Human Rights Watch.
"The mild tone of the State Department report is shocking,” declared Ben Rawlence, the group's Kenya researcher.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (15)
at 09:48 on March 2nd, 2009
You are very welcome, Cypresso! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! However, I don't think the "...fact that the United States has charges against itself for the same." has anything to do with it. Case in point: your story on China (linked above:)).
at 09:55 on March 2nd, 2009
Thanks for this, Rhonda.
at 10:02 on March 2nd, 2009
You are very welcome, Jarrett! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!
at 11:51 on March 2nd, 2009
Thank you for the article, Rhonda. I believe Cypresso may have a point about why there may be less boldness on the part of the U.S. regarding human rights abuses. Your discussion with Cypresso in this regard reminded me that prior to the Olympics in China, there was a good deal of criticism about human rights abuses. I happened to see my Dog Justice poem and a couple of articles about the secret incarceration and wrongful death of my mentally ill, physically handicapped brother and our startling denial of any accountability despite five years of asking authorities for help had been traslated into an Asian language (the titles were still in English). I don't even know which Asian language it was. I did not print them, because I planned to ask someone to look at some future point and tell me which language they had been traslated into. However, I did not see the Asian translations of theses astounding acts of after the Olympics started. The poem is at this link: http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/dog-justice-mary-neal
From time to time, I see other articles of mine regarding the mentally ill in prisons reproduced on an Asian blog. So it could be just as Cypresso believes. It is difficult to correct others unless you feel comfortable with your own performance on human rights at home.
Mary Neal
at 15:41 on March 2nd, 2009
You are very welcome, duo! Thanks for stopping by, commenting, reading, and for the recommendation!
Secretary of State Clinton did not speak openly about human rights abuses by China upon its citizens during her recent visit:
"However, the Secretary of State said she had held candid discussions on human rights issues with her Chinese counterpart." ( from Cypresso's story source).
It is therefore my opinion based on the readings, that the United States did not back down in any way in its condemnation of human rights abuses by China. What it did do, however, is release its report on human rights abuses by China upon its citizens after Mrs. Clinton's trip, and releasing the US Department of State 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices/2008 Human Rights Report Introduction was timed perfectly. Consequently, I don't 'see' where the US is backing down from China; Mrs. Clinton simply did not speak of the issues openly and, again, the US Department of State report was released after she returned from her trip abroad. It (report) is clear in its condemnations and is apparently the reason for the comments noted in Cypresso's story.
It seems however, and again, and unlike with China, Obama's administration has taken a soft-stance on Kenya as noted by this article, the report, and accompanying videos.
at 15:52 on March 2nd, 2009
Hi Rhonda,
If I may take the liberty of using these words, taken from the article you posted;
"The State Department does not criticise any Kenyan officials by name, nor does it call for specific actions on the part of the government."
That would indicate to me that it's the same attitude for both countries. After all, Clinton named no names and did not call for specific action either, and neither has the State Department...
Mind you, I think the Administration is right on both counts, in the context of realpolitiks. It's a little early for them to get stuck into these issues in a meaningful way. My take? Let's judge this Administration after a little "settling-in" time.
Sounds callous, but that's how global politics go...
at 17:04 on March 2nd, 2009
Fripouille, you may take the liberty and thank you for your interpretation of them:). It may very well be the same attitude for both countries.
However, I do not believe for one minute (as stated by Cypresso above) " ...that when accused with the same charges, the U.S. may well have chosen to have a more mild stance when viewing the human rights abuses of others, to keep their own abuses more or less out of the headlines."
My comments thus far have been based on the readings here. Further research led me to a rather interesting article from the Christian Examiner titled, Clinton under fire for softening human rights stand with China. Consequently, and even though Cypresso indicated that "I [He] did mention in that story that Hillary Clinton has more or less changed her stance on human rights abuses by China, thereby, in my opinion, taking a softer stance."-- I did not derive this line of thinking from the original source -- Now, however, after reading the aforementioned, I would add to my comment to duo above that in addition, Clinton too is under fire for softening human rights stand with China.
at 17:38 on March 2nd, 2009
I would most certainly agree with that Rhonda (which means lol! Cypresso, if you read this, sorry, but I don't buy either!)
The U.S. does not hide its alleged abuses behind the tolerance of abuse by others. On the contrary, Nixon, vietnam, revealed CIA activity in Latin America, the unequalled progress that America has made in combatting racism within its shores and Abu Graib have all shown that no country in the world is so open about its errors in the field of human and political rights as America is, and no country does more to put them right.
If I'm wrong here, maybe someone could cite a better example....?
at 13:04 on March 2nd, 2009
I also totally agree with you. Nice article.
at 15:42 on March 2nd, 2009
Microdermabrasion, thank you!
at 17:06 on March 2nd, 2009
I see your point, Rhonda. After Ms. Clinton's trip, the report met your expectations regarding speaking about human rights abuses. I suppose it is not polite to go someplace and criticize your hosts, so maybe that is why criticism waited until the report. But your expectations regarding speaking about abuses in Kenya are not being met. I understand your point, although I confess that I know next to nothing about international relations.
NOW HERE IS MY QUESTION: Since I wrote my comment earlier, I HAVE LOST RICH TEXT. This prohibits me from posting links in my comments. Does someone not like my little poem? It is true, and the best way to address negative truths is to improve - be righteous. Censorship is not the answer.
On the other hand, in case this is technical difficulty, I will report the problem.
Thanks again, Rhonda.
at 17:14 on March 2nd, 2009
You are very welcome, duo! Thank you! I would suggest that you contact NP tech staff for assistance!
at 17:57 on March 2nd, 2009
We have how much real power there? Is the guy in charge a member of Obama's tribal/extended family/political group?
I think that that may answer the question.
at 21:12 on March 2nd, 2009
Follow the OIL people....
at 07:47 on March 6th, 2009
this information is really important to know that I recognize this new site. really nice site. I am not good, but few in English if I understand that I am millet